The 2026 Annual Meetings of the IMF and World Bank will open in Bangkok, Thailand, on October 12, 2026. It’s a return to the country that hosted the Meetings 35 years ago. The countdown starts today. #IMFMeetings

We do not know what the future of work will look like. But it will be heavily shaped by the policies and institutions that govern how economies adapt to technological change.

The goal of policy should not be to protect specific jobs, companies, or industries. It should be to incentivize employees and businesses to adapt and to unlock the productivity gains from AI. This requires flexibility, dynamism and sound structural policies—not stasis.

The overarching response to a structural shock like AI should be structural policies—designed to facilitate adjustment rather than prevent it.

If policymakers respond to AI with the wrong set of policies—the kind that delay rather than facilitate adjustment—they risk causing worse rather than better labor market outcomes.

None of this implies that the adjustment will be smooth or costless. Even when technological change ultimately supports net job creation, the transition can be disruptive.

New technology expands economic activity—by opening new markets, increasing scale, and supporting entirely new forms of production, consumption, and employment. Economists call this the "Jevons paradox".

This time could always be different. But the overwhelming weight of historical evidence supports the claim that innovative technologies do not cause mass unemployment.

AI has reignited an old fear—that technology will eliminate work. In a new F&D piece, I argue that the outcomes will depend more on the policies that govern the adjustment than on AI as a technology (thread) imf.org/en/publications/fand…